fdx retro bonus package
 

Anyone else not receive the package ALPA is talking about? Couldn't find a link on ALPA site either

I received mine in an email. Received my letter about a week ago too.

Probably in your email junk folder.

But they also sent a letter in the mail.

you can verify your status online http://www.alpa.org/fdxverification

Heard someone is suing because he didn't get the full amount due to some time on LTD.

Hello ALPA?
 

What are the implications of that (assuming the rumor is true)? Does that mean everybody's checks will be delayed? Until when?

The Court System in some parts of the country are VERY backed up. I had a recent minor traffic violation dismissed because it took nearly 2 years to go to court (Right to a speedy trail)!

And ... if all of this is true, why hasn't the union mentioned it? Could we all be assessed damages? Why / when / how much? Enquiring minds want to know,


:eek:

That's why they're paying it in 3 installments. Last ~5% or so will be held back to deal with lawsuits. Once those are settled, final payment (what's left) will go out.

Hope its not a non-member
 

So in reality, he/she is suing all of us.

Is it the Companies decision or Alpa's about not paying "Active" pilots the bonus. In reality if it represents a "retro" then if they weren't active, they wouldn't have "earned" the retro.....as LTD is based on work history prior to going on LTD, any active months that they work after LTD would earn the retro.

That is just a short look at it.

I sure hope it's not a "Non-Member not on dues checkoff" that is suing us (if sit rumor is true). That would be some pretty distasteful icing on the cake. Somehow I could stomach it better if it is a dues paying member suing us.

It's not retro, unless you call it retro. It comes no where close to the amount needed for it to be retro.

It is a signing bonus, plain and simple.

You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and the date should be date of signing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lawsuit over that as well.

It's not suing anybody -- it is using the expedited dispute resolution procedures to contest the allocation methodology, as described in the package everyone should have received. Is it asking too much to read that? It's kinda important. ;)

ALPA's Executive Council (the EVPs) will render a decision.


This was discussed at the Council 7 Meeting this past Wednesday. (I noticed, nobody here asked about the Joint Council Meeting, no, "I won't be able to make it -- somebody please take notes" or "Hey, I couldn't be there, what did they say?" posts. I guess the care factor has gone down a bit.)

A subcommittee of the MEC Reps decided who would be included, and they tried to be as inclusive as possible. They included pilots who had already retired. They included pilots on military leave (had to by law). They included management pilots. According to the ALPA National attorneys who assisted, they supposedly had the most inclusive policy of anyone making similar lump-sum distributions.



If a pilot went on LTD prior to the amendable date of the previous CBA, his payments would not have been affected by any pay raise that should have occurred then, so there is no retroactive harm. However, if he went on LTD a year after there should have been a pay raise, his LTD payments were based on a pay rate that should have been raised. A solid argument could be made that his LTD payments would have been higher, and some retro pay would be due to compensate for the loss.

More complicated still is the effect some payments made to the pilot might affect the LTD amounts to which he is entitled. Would receipt of a retro signing bonus decrease the amount of LTD benefits he would therefore receive? I don't know, but I acknowledge it's not a simple calculation.

I'll refer you again to the materials you were sent via e-mail and USPS.
Looks like they call it retro. Yeah, I agree the amount comes nowhere close, but shouldn't the amounts then be proportional?



Dispute, not lawsuit. Since we agree it's retro, why are not the months of September and October 2015 included? The "retro amendable lookback period" should be February 24, 2013 to November 1, 2015, so there should be 32 months in the equation instead of 30 months. This would mean that some people who were active for a portion of those 32 months should receive more, some should receive less, and those who were active for the entire 32 months should receive more or less depending on how much remains after the prorated pilots amounts are adjusted.

Since it's retro, and it should therefore address and seek to compensate those pilots who were harmed by delayed pay raises, consider the case of a pilot who was a narrow-body Captain for the entire 32 months compared to a pilot who was a narrow-body First Officer for 31 months, and who then upgraded to narrow-body Captain during the 32nd month. Were they harmed equally? I would submit that the Former was harmed more, and should receive a larger portion of the retro signing bonus, and the latter should receive a prorated portion of the retro bonus based on his narrow-body First Officer position for 31 of 32 months, and a prorated portion of the retro bonus based on his narrow-body Captain position for 1 of 32 months.

Since it is far more common for pilots to upgrade than to downgrade, particularly during the period of time in question here, the recalculation of the retro bonus to account for upgrading would likely result in reduced amounts for anyone who upgraded, and increased amounts for everyone who did not.


Discuss. ;)






.

I met at least one of the people who plans to sue. He was on LTD for most of the period involved. He plans to file a class action lawsuit saying he is being discriminated against. I don't believe he is a non-member as he kept talking about how his rep kept lying to him about how the decision to not pay people on LTD was reached.

I am sure Tony can tell us the difference between this payout and the rules for 2006 and 2011.

Is there a relevant point there somewhere?






.

Depends. I think the formula and the recipients in 2006 was exactly the same as 2015. Don't remember much about our bridge bonus and I am much to lazy to look it up. Now is it relevant that the 2006 payout matches the 2015 payout, probably if you are trying to dispute it. Wouldn't you say?

If the 2006 payout matched the 2015 payout, it might be relevant. It matched in some ways; in some ways, it did not. It was a "lump sum signing bonus" -- different terminology. It considered the entire amendable period, June 1, 2004 through DOS, October 31, 2006 - 29 months. Active pilots received cash, pensionable, dues-able, and eligible for B-Plan contributions. Pilots on military leave were treated as if they were active. Retired pilots received a prorated bonus in the form of an HRA contribution. The amounts of the individual bonuses were based on the highest crew status in which he was active during the amendable period. This included the time after the TA was reached, the time required for ratification, and the time up until "DOS." Many pilots, myself included, upgraded during the period between TA and DOS.

The 2011 "bonus" was 1% of CY2010 Pensionable Wages, capped at $2,600 bonus. It was a lump sum, it was treated as pensionable wages (ALPA dues-able), and eligible for B-Plan contributions.

Here's the biggest difference. In 2006, there was no dispute process to challenge the methodology of the distribution. Since then, pilots sued ALPA for distributions they believed were unfair. ALPA has since created the dispute resolution process. It's not a "take it or leave it" situation anymore, or a case where a pilot would have to commit to a major undertaking to engage in a lawsuit. There is, in a Festivus sort of way, a described avenue for the "airing of grievances" that anyone can easily access.






.

[QUOTE=TonyC;2006642]

A subcommittee of the MEC Reps decided who would be included, and they tried to be as inclusive as possible. They included pilots who had already retired. They included pilots on military leave (had to by law). They included management pilots. According to the ALPA National attorneys who assisted, they supposedly had the most inclusive policy of anyone making similar lump-sum distributions.


I agree military leave was included because of federal law. For those affected, I wonder why military leave pilots were excluded in 2011?

Goodo points Tony
 

I know all about the dispute resolution process because I read my packet. Doesn't stop someone from trying to file a suit regardless if it there is a dispute resolution process. I believe the rumor was that someone was suing ALPA over the amount.

I too surmised that there was an argument to be made in the case of someone who went on LTD AFTER the period in which the "retro" covered, then his LTD payments would be reduced unless he hit the LTD limits anyway.......I thought about including it in my original message but thought twice about it.....mainly because he/she will be cutting into my share! I have a brand new high end speed boat to fund for crying out loud....I don't want all these LTD guys to ruin my good deal ;-)

I just really hope it's not a non-member not on dues checkoff.

Your sadistic gloating wasn't funny the first time. :rolleyes:






.

Does it include a pole and require feats of strength?:D

Tony said:

"Many pilots, myself included, upgraded during the period between TA and DOS." In reference to the 2006 contract.

So why didn't they use DOS this time? Do you know? If yes, please explain.

Your statement above sounds an awful lot like "I got mine", especially to those of us that didn't.

I'd like to hear a justification for changing the dates from historical precedence.

I don't know why, I don't know the justification, and I'm trying to find a reason why it should not be challenged for the two reasons I mentioned above. I didn't think it was fair for me to get a bigger bonus because I met the deadline by a day for activation in a higher paying seat, but I'm seeing (here and on JetFlyers) people complain because they got screwed because their upgrade wasn't counted because TA date was used instead of DOS.

As for the full bonus credit for a last minute upgrade, I felt the same way before, but there was no way to challenge the methodology. Based on the CBA language, it appeared to be FedEx's choice as to how it was split up, and it was part of the deal, take it or leave it. This time we're told it was FedEx ALPA's choice, and if we don't like it, here's how to challenge the methodology.

If both of the challenges I mentioned above were to be successful, I don't know what the net effect on my own personal amount would be. One would likely increase the amount, but the other might have a more negative effect. I think the principles are more important than the pennies, but I'm curious to hear if others agree with the principles.






.

I don't believe they were excluded. If they had pensionable wages, they should have received 1% up to $2,600 dollars, just like everyone else.






.

When a military member returns from long term mil leave, he/she has pensionable earnings as if he/she never left.

Yet, upon return, those gone for ltmla during the 2011 signing did not receive that bonus like everyone else. It was written in the 2011 signing to exclude military leave by both company and ALPA. This was illegal yet never corrected when brought to the attention of labor relations and the Union. It is my understanding a group of these folks are taking this to court.

Couldn't the Union look into this for them? If I understand it, the Union is aware of the situation and advised them it was illegal in 2011. I am glad they got it correct this contract signing, but why make them fight it in court?

They make them fight it in court, because they count on you not having enough money to do it.

If you sue ALPA and win, do they pay your attorney's fees?

If not, that's the reason.

I may be wrong, but with USERRA complaints (which I believe this would be), the Department of Labor is the one bringing the suit on the members' behalf. And they definitely have the money to fight them in court...

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I was not aware that a military member on leave would have pensionable wages for that period. I DO believe he is entitled to B-Plan contributions AS IF HE HAD pensionable wages, but I don't think there are actual wages from which are deducted taxes and dues and such. Again, I may be mistaken.

I was never made aware as a member of the MEC after the 2011 CBA was ratified that there were questions or complaints about the 1% bonus and its application to pilots on Military Leave. If I'm elected this Tuesday, I'll make it a priority to find out and do what it takes to fix it. There's no good reason for those pilots to be penalized.






.

A member on mil leave is covered by USERRA as we all know. When a pilot is away on short term military leave, trips are dropped that are in his/her schedule. The pilot receives no wages for that dropped trip, but the B fund percentage is paid on the CH of the trip. The term used is imputed earnings. The company has 90 days maximum after the trip to fill the pilot's B fund with the correct amount and it's listed in the Vanguard contributions as sourced from MLA.

The pilot on long term mil leave, 31+ days, when he/she returns from military leave also has imputed earnings. But in this case, the pilot didn't get a schedule filled with actual CH dropped for the 6 months, 2 years, or whatever term away. USERRA permits the use of the previous 12 month's earnings to establish how the imputed earnings should be calculated for the purposes of the B fund contribution. Once again, the company has 90 days from the pilot's return to make this contribution to the Vanguard account.

USERRA protects "perquisites of seniority" of which pension, years of service, etc are protected. A pilot on long term military leave continues to accrue years of longevity for the A fund too. Let's say a pilot worked at FedEx from 2000 to 2025 and from 2010 to 2015 was on mitary leave. The pilot would still have 25 years of credited service for pension (A fund) purposes--not 20.

USERRA also protects the pilot's employment as if he/she were continuously employed. They have to treated the same as every other pilot when it comes to "perquisites of seniority". (Note this is not the same meaning of seniority as we think of when it comes to our seniority number. One way you can think of the term is that an MLA pilot must get anything anyone gets as a pilot just by existing. Longevity--you exist, you get. Wages--existing doesn't get one squat, you have to work to get wages, pensions are a special protected case, etc). A signing bonus can be required to be paid or it may not have to be, based on how it's defined. For example, a pilot on MLA does not earn vacation accrual while he/she is away, nor are sick hours earned. They did not do work required to earn it. A bonus which is retro pay may not be required to be paid, but a bonus which is a signing bonus isn't earned by work, and thus is a perquisite of "existing" and must be paid to the MLA pilot.

Tony has described before how the rules changed some time back so retro pay is no longer possible because of IRS(?) rulings? This should make all bonuses as if that date payable to MLA pilots.

Geez...no wonder guys like those military leaves of absence

Yeah, military employees leave their families, take a serious pay cut and possibly go into harms way on a daily basis on the other side of the planet just to take advantage of such a good deal. :rolleyes:

You're not smart enough to be a pilot ... what do you really do?

Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm (no emojis)?


:confused:

Not to mention signed up to do so. :rolleyes:

3 years to the day. :rolleyes:






.

Still working on his 1500 hours back then.....plus the internet was spotty in his mom’s basement. :D

Come on guys, he didn't even join the forum until this year! How is he to know that things existed on the internet before he found them? Doesn't everything revolve around him?

:):)